Making a Murderer: What was Legal and what was NOT

02/10/2016 02:01 pm ETUpdated
Feb 10, 2017

The ten-episode Netflix documentary Making a Murderer has captivated viewers since its premiere, and left many stunned as to how the justice system failed Steven Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey. However, in capturing the legal proceedings of Steven and Brendan, much was left unexplained by the filmmakers.

That's why, in this two-hour special, four attorneys with prosecution and defense backgrounds join together to explain the law behind several issues presented in Steven and Brendan's cases, and answer the questions of viewers who were left with one burning question throughout the show: was that legal?!

Were investigators allowed to use the techniques they did to get Brendan Dassey to confess? How come Steven's defense couldn't point fingers, and name names in trial, as to who else could've killed Teresa? How were jurors with ties to the Manitowoc County Sheriffs Department allowed to be seated on the jury panel? Was it ethical for prosecutor Ken Kratz to describe every gruesome detail from Brendan's first confession in the press conference he held? What about the actions of Brendan's first defense attorney, Len Kachinsky? How was the brand new EDTA test allowed in, and the expert witness, allowed to testify that the preservative wasn't found in the blood in Teresa's car? Is it common for a trial judge to review his own record on appeal, like Judge Patrick Willis did in Steven's case? What about the way in which Manitowoc law enforcement got Penny Beernsten to identify Steven as her attacker, was that legal?

We answer these questions, and many more, in the special Making a Murderer Review and Aftershow.